People v. Navarro
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: T/Sgt. Jose V. Sanchez filed a complaint for qualified theft directly with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Naga City against a minor, Carlos Barbosa Jr. The Public Attorney's Office, counsel for Barbosa, filed a Motion to Quash the Complaint, asserting Sgt. Sanchez's lack of authority to file it directly with the court. Judge Gregorio Manio, Jr. remanded the case for preliminary investigation and assigned it to Prosecutor Salvador Cajot. Procedural History: Before Prosecutor Cajot could conduct the preliminary investigation, Sgt. Sanchez filed a motion to withdraw the complaint with the Prosecution Office. Prosecutor Cajot, with the approval of the Provincial Prosecutor, issued an Order dated March 21, 1990, granting the withdrawal and ordering the release of the accused. The RTC was furnished a copy of this Order. Subsequently, Respondent Judge Gloriosa Navarro ordered the Provincial Prosecutor and Prosecutor Cajot to explain why they encroached on the court's jurisdiction. After receiving their explanations, Judge Navarro issued an Order dated June 18, 1990, setting aside Prosecutor Cajot's Order and directing Assistant Prosecutor Novelita Llaguno, who was appearing in her sala, to conduct the preliminary investigation. Motions for reconsideration filed by Prosecutor Llaguno and Prosecutor Cajot were denied. The Provincial Prosecutor filed a motion to set aside the orders, arguing the judge had no authority to designate a particular prosecutor and that such action constituted grave abuse of discretion. This motion was also denied. The Petition: The People of the Philippines, represented by the Solicitor General, filed a petition for certiorari seeking the annulment of Respondent Judge Navarro's assailed orders, arguing that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in appointing a particular prosecutor to conduct the preliminary investigation.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent trial court committed grave abuse of discretion when it issued various orders appointing and designating a particular prosecutor to conduct the preliminary investigation. Whether an RTC judge has the authority to designate a particular prosecutor to conduct a preliminary investigation.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The assailed Orders of Respondent Judge Gloriosa S. Navarro are SET ASIDE and ANNULLED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the respondent trial court committed grave abuse of discretion when it issued various orders appointing and designating a particular prosecutor to conduct the preliminary investigation: The Supreme Court held that the preliminary investigation is an executive, not a judicial, function. The prosecutor is primarily responsible for ascertaining whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that an offense has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof. An RTC judge has no authority to conduct a preliminary investigation, and consequently, cannot directly order an assistant prosecutor to conduct one, especially over the objections of the latter's superiors. To allow such an action would be to permit the judge to meddle in the executive and administrative functions of the provincial or city prosecutor. The Court cited Abugotal vs. Tiro (66 SCRA 196) which squarely ruled that a trial court cannot choose a particular prosecutor who would conduct a preliminary investigation or reinvestigation, as this is a prerogative vested in the chief of the office. The Court found the respondent judge's distinction between preliminary investigation and reinvestigation to be insubstantial and tenuous, as both are conducted in the same manner and for the same objective. The Court reiterated that the preliminary investigation proper, which determines whether the offender should be held for trial, is a function of the prosecutors, while the determination of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest is judicial. In this case, the RTC had not yet acquired jurisdiction over the complaint because it was filed by an unauthorized person, making the judge's interference even more improper. The Court concluded that the respondent judge's orders constituted grave abuse of discretion. On the issue of whether an RTC judge has the authority to designate a particular prosecutor to conduct a preliminary investigation: As stated above, the preliminary investigation is an executive function, and an RTC judge does not have the authority to conduct a preliminary investigation or to designate a particular prosecutor to conduct one. This authority is vested in the chief of the prosecutor's office. The judge's actions in this case constituted grave abuse of discretion.
Main Doctrine
A Regional Trial Court judge has no authority to designate a particular prosecutor to conduct a preliminary investigation, as this is an executive function vested in the prosecutor's office. Such designation constitutes grave abuse of discretion.